Simon E. wrote:Well thank you for putting us right about what HHDL SHOULD have said...

When I write it so, this means it is not dependent on whether he said that or not, rather dependent on the clarity of Mind. And I don't doubt His Holiness is not looking through compliment-giving clinging mind but wisdom. Therefore no clinging flattery but genuine respect. Bodhichitta.

Seems that creating bafflement wasn't your intention a week ago, and you seemed to be trying to make a point saying you didn't "believe a word" of an account I'd posted on this thread. Perhaps the thrill of that bygone era has passed and I am merely passing gas with this posting, but the topic and the enigma of what you said is interesting to me. In fact, I decided not to do much formal practice tonight just so I could clarify things here and ask you to clarify your responses to my post.

Also, I did read your 2nd response to my story via your response to Admantine's post saying that he thought the story I recounted on this thread was true. If you cannot recall my story, it was regarding a Sikh guy who hosts Vajrayana teachers and a particular Nyingma lama who had said that it was true that Guru Nanak was indeed quite involved with Tibetan Buddhism for a time at the very least. Your response to Admantine's post was "people say all sorts of things don't they ?"

I then posted and asked you what you meant by saying you didn't believe a word of my story and it didn't seem as tho you would respond, perhaps you thought why bother he hasn't even read my second post and you seemed to be more concerned with hashing something out with Mr./Ms. Muni.

To clarify, I'd like to say I am sincerely interested to hear what you have to say about anything I had said in my story and why you think "people are say(ing) all sorts of things," whatever that means. I guess it means that you think that because people often speak without thinking too much about what they are saying that the Sikh and the lama were doing the same and we should just drop the topic and dismiss it as they are just saying things to pass the time or whatever? But I think it is clear that my host being from a Sikh background and who now seems to have converted to Buddhism and the lama regard such matters as being important enough as to not have just said any old thing. Think about it, it is quite likely that such matters would be important enough to such people as to not just sit down and start spinning fairy tales about Guru Nanak and Vajrayana between cracking their knuckles and singing old Kentucky whiskey drinking songs that they also had just made up. "Oh that old girl Virginia!/Why she shore could milk a cow!/Milked 5,000 in a day/And all the people said Oh Wow!" No. Both guys are commited practitioners so they would not take that kind of thing lightly.

Saying something non-baffling about what you know about Guru Nanak in Tibet or the connection of Dzogchen to Sikh philosophy and practice or lack thereof might be more interesting or even inspiring than some flash cryptic remarks or songs about cow milking. Perhaps there is something you know that I don't that would cause you to view the discussion on this thread or my story or things people said to me regarding Guru Nanak and Dzogchen as just things people say?

I don't post or comment hardly at all on this web site, so I don't think I would be just trying to fill the time with made up yarns or the kind of vaporous posts you seem to be suggesting I make. If you were annoyed by something I said on some other discussion topic, I apologize, I don't think I meant to piss you off.

If I have misinterpreted your recent remarks and taken the wrong end of the stick, then I apologize. But your aphoristic comments in response to my story run more of risk of misinterpretation, so maybe you would be generous enough to cut me a bit of slack and clarify what you had to say. As for any bafflement I may have just created, that is not my intention, thank you for being arsed enough to read this post this far and perhaps even respond.

Struggling here, Shem

Last edited by Adamantine on Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Corrected to address the correct recipient

Shemmy, why on earth would you do less practice tonight in order to communicate your beliefs to some anonymous guy on the internet ? Seriously. My views about your views need not concern you, and the degree of your concern seems at odds with the whole raison d'etre of Dzogchen.

Simon E. wrote:Shemmy, why on earth would you do less practice tonight in order to communicate your beliefs to some anonymous guy on the internet ? Seriously. My views about your views need not concern you, and the degree of your concern seems at odds with the whole raison d'etre of Dzogchen.

You are right, I should have spent my time practicing. But if your views need not concern me,then why suggest that they ought to by posting responses to my posts. That's a rhetorical question and I won't checking back in for the answer, so I wouldn't waste any more of your own time with any of this either.

Vajraprajnakhadga wrote:There are many shared elements across all mystical traditions. I would say that that is more the result of direct experiences of non-duality than direct influence but you never know.

Interesting. The "I-you" are artists, drawing ideas by percieved apprehended phenomenal differences. Therefore I don't know and I guess nondual nature has no thing to prove/divide.